I noticed your tally in your recent Buffy edit. I'm envious; I've racked up only about 2200 myself in 15 months. Might I ask how you calculated this? I haven't seen a Wikiquote equivalent of Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, and I don't believe that separates main from auxiliary namespace edits anyway. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 13:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

A belated thanks to you for adding this oh-so-appropriate quote in the recent VfD for transwikied speeches. (As you probably noticed, I took your advice.) I had run into a spoof of this quote in MST3K, from The Phantom Creeps, chapter 1:

[The opening credits, after showing the main characters in action, merely list the lesser players.]

Crow [as Bela Lugosi]: I forget who did what here. I say, "Shoot the picture! Let God sort it out."

I'd thought about adding this line and including a note about the original quote to show the cultural reference, but my own research had tracked it to an unsourced assertion[1] that it was a U.S. Marine/Green Beret saying that was based on a monk recording "Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset" during the Béziers massacre around 1210. This appears to be the same event, but with some varying details, like your citation of Arnaud-Amaury, Abbot of Citeaux, 1209 (the guy who apparently said, presumably in French, what the monk recorded in Latin). Do you have a source for that? (I read Albigensian Crusade and saw the reference to Caesar of Heisterbach; is this from his Dialogus magnus visionum ac miraculorum? If so, where did the French version come from?) I'd like to nail this down, to the extent possible. Thanks. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 15:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

My own research led me to think that a good place to look for the source might be The Perfect Heresy by Stephen Shea. Sadly, the only copy of that book down here is down south, so it might be a while before I get my hands on it. ~ MosheZadka(Talk) 16:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the title. My local library system has a copy, so I've slapped a hold on it and will take a look in a few days. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 16:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Jeff. A friend of mine researched the issue. Here are his results:

The quote is attributed to Arnold Amalric, Abbot of Citeaux and papal legate (representative) with the crusading army at the massacre in Beziers on 22 July 1209. Earliest source reporting the quote is "Dialogue concerning miracles" of Caesar of Heisterbach, a Cistercian monk in the diocese of Cologne, written about 40 years after the event. (Caesarii Heisterbacensis Monachi ... Dialogus Miraculorum, ed. J. Strange [Cologne, Bonn and Brussels 1851] volume 1 page 302):

"Knowing from their confessions that the Catolics were mingled together with heretics they asked the Abbot 'What shall we do, lord? We cannot tell the good men from the bad.' It is said that the Abbot, fearing - as did the others - that some might pretend to be Catholics through fear of dying but would return to their error after the crusaders had gone, replied: 'Kill them. The Lord knows who are his own.' [Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.] Thus it was that an innumerable host of people were killed in this city."

Thanks once more! I appreciate the effort you and your friend have put into sourcing this quote. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 16:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I finally got my hands on the O'Shea book and looked up the specific text to confirm the source, then added it to Latin proverbs. (I couldn't find any info on Dialogus Miraculorum, and I don't feel comfortable adding sources I can't personally verify. But that's just my hangup, I suppose.) In case you didn't notice (ha!), I also added quotes to Veronica Mars and MST3K that allude to this famous quote. I'm not usually big on links within dialog, but I thought this one was intriguing enough (and its origin sufficiently obscure) to include links from these two shows directly to the "original" Latin (using a SPAN id tag). ~ Jeff Q(talk) 16:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, MosheZadka. I just noticed your village pump announcement and took a look at what you've set up. It looks extremely useful. But I'm troubled by the speed at which this significant development coming from one user is being implemented. This isn't being bold about editing an article; this is being bold about changing the way wiki users learn to create articles, and must be given a little time for people to look over.

One of the reasons we came up with 2 weeks for VfD (as opposed to WP's 5 days) was a realistic assessment of the reaction time of the WQ community, balanced against the need for a target closure time. (Before this, we had VfDs that went on for many weeks, even months, and were still closed with little participation.) When Aphaia raised the question of shortening the time, I gave her 3 recent cases where 2 weeks made a difference in the result (including, as you'll recall, Veronica Mars). Looking over the history, I see you gave everyone 6 days to find your "input box" posting on VP, then moved it (without leaving any information on what it was about) to Help talk:Starting a new page. My own painful experience has taught me that that's just not enough time to get any input from the community, and I believe you had a similar result.

I know it's quite frustrating, but we simply can't expect people to respond quickly here, and for important issues, we can't expect them all to find announcements in one place. When I've proposed significant changes like yours, I've found it necessary to post announcements in several likely places to get any response at all. I recommend that you provide a brief explanation of what you're trying to accomplish (similar to your original VP posting, but not assuming people are aware of the problem) and post it in VP, Wikiquote talk:Templates, and the Talk page of each of the lists where people currently created such articles; i.e., Talk:List of films, Talk:Television shows, Talk:List of people by name, Talk:List of people by occupation. Each of these reaches different editors. Some people watch VP regularly. Some only care about adding TV shows and are only likely to have Television shows on their watchlist. Some care quite a bit about official templates (often only for certain categories, like people or books) and will miss announcements in these other places. It's a pain, but it helps round up everyone who would be affected by this change.

I've logged a support vote for your suggestion, but with several caveats along the lines I've mentioned here. One especially important point is that the templates that you're using must not be in User space, but in Wikiquote:Templates space (probably as subpages, as you set up and as has been discussed at Wikiquote talk:Templates), so that the community can comfortably edit and discuss them. Also, it's vital we first have a proper "Starting a new page" article to add the "input box" to, for reasons I explained in my vote.

All in all, I think this approach will be quite useful, but we must make sure the community is on board for this. Thanks for listening to my typically long-winded commentary. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 18:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Just to clarify something I mentioned above, not everyone is aware of the problems of creating a new article. A while back, someone asked, along with an unrelated question, how the Search page could provide an option to create a new page when an article wasn't found. Aphaia's response suggested to me that she didn't understand the problem, which I saw as providing the same capability that Wikipedia does with their link:

You can create an article with this title…

Wikiquote has traditionally expected people to go to one of the lists linked from the Main page and add the article title to it, using the red link to create the article. Experienced users have other tricks for quick creation, like adding "&action=edit" to the URL (ugh!) or using the sandbox (or any page) to create a quick link that they just jump to without saving the sandbox or victim page. New users, of course, know neither the traditions nor the kludges. I think that's a major source of the new-user challenge, and our lack of a Help:Starting a new page hasn't helped. The underlying problem hasn't been addressed, and will wind up being ignored if we don't address it before providing a shortcut for some page creations. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 18:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Jeff. Thanks for your encouragement — and your admonishments! I've added notices to the places you recommended, and if you think of any others please either let me know or add notices there. I have extended the vote by a week, to raise the probability that everyone has enough time to evaluate the issues and to voice their opinion. As you know, I am quite new here, and I certainly do not want to overstep my boundaries. ~ MosheZadka(Talk) 19:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I worry that you take my advice a little too much to heart sometimes. I'm afraid that my habit of being pedantic comes off as delivering sermons from the mount. The only boundaries you have are the ones that bind us all at Wikiquote, and, as you know, many of those are rather flexible. Believe me, I'm just as likely to be preachy to Aphaia and the other sysops who have much more sysop (and often wiki) experience than I, and they remind me often enough of errors, questionable interpretations, and practical problems with my ideas (usually less ponderously and more diplomatically!). It's all part of this cooperative community. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 21:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry too much. Usually, when I take it "to heard", it because it resonates with a fear I've been having anyway, with more or less awareness. In fact, before you sent me the message, I was going to thank you for commenting on Help talk:Starting a new page because I was starting to feel like a one-man show, and I don't want it...so keep delivering sermons — I'll manage to ignore the ones I thoroughly disagree with :) ~ MosheZadka(Talk) 03:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course, you are a one-man show. That's the problem with many of the issues that we face on Wikiquote — they're often dealt with by a single person who steps up to the plate. You're doing exactly what I and others have done in the past: work out a way to solve a problem and present it as a fait-mostly-accompli. Then you wait for some input and hope you've provided enough framework (without going too far off in a novel direction) to allow folks to tweak it and then approve.

I'm hoping to help out a bit by going over the WP and meta versions of "Help:Starting a new page" to provide the starting point I suggested, but I see that it's already more complicated than it used to be. Apparently meta now has a template (in the general sense) for the entire page, including several templates (in the wiki sense) that I've never seen before, which is supposed to be copied verbatim without editing, using only some project-specific parameters. (That's fine if you think that meta and WP have the ideal page; I rarely do, because I think they both have a tendency to drop into wiki developer-speak, which is rather pointless in a page for newcomers.) I also noticed it uses the input box right up front, which certainly supports your approach! Anyway, I'll try to come up with something in the next couple of days. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 04:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

My removal of the category from Methuselah Jones was not an accident. There is (was?) a band by that name, and in fact I have their CD, but this Methuselah Jones is unrelated to them.

I got a problem. The image on this page is confusing me. I swear that yesterday I downloaded it from wikipedia, uploaded it to the commons, and then linked it to the quote page. But now when I try to link to the image from wikisource, poorly named (muir2.jpg), it shows a samenamed picture of a tree. But yet the image is still correct on the wq page. What in the heck is going on? [Here's] the wikisource page I'm starting. Sveden 15:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind greeting and for correcting (formating and content) my first attempts at creating "Croatian proverbs". Two brief questions:

you cleaned italic and bold formating from my original (copy from Coriscan). German, Italian and some others use italic and put proverbs in quotes. i find that this improves reading and looks better. Should I use some of other languages as "template" or should I stick with what you proposed ?

Sorry for removing italics — that was a mistake. I've restored italics now on all quotes. You can take a look at the latest version of Croatian proverbs if you want. Re: Main Page: I think that the list of proverbs on the main page is pretty static. However, I am working (slowly, since I have limited time) on a "Featured article" idea which will feature selected articles on the main page for a month, based on a vote. Once this is created, you'll be able to nominate Croatian proverbs for featured article. ~ MosheZadka(Talk) 05:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. I am trying to do something for Croatian version of WikiQuotes, too. You can take a look at Poslovice where I am still looking for a readable format to contain both Croatian and English versions as well as meanings of proverbs. Is there a way to link those two pages, or make one just a http link to another, if I decide this should be a literal copy of one page (for updating simplicity)? Is this a good idea at all?

I am very new to Wiki so my question for today is: what is the proper (and cnonvenient way) to communicate with a user of Wiki? Both, if this is something interesting for general public and if it is private, just a conversation between me and the person? --Ppale 12:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

You can leave messages on the user talk page (like you're doing), or you can use the "e-mail this user" link. I strongly suggest against the latter except in unusual circumstances — just go ahead and leave messages on talk pages! ~ MosheZadka(Talk) 12:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. It was actually very helpful. I've been preoccupied with serious computer problems for the past few days. I had meant to suggest a wording change because "Should literary works standard deprecate using quote marks?", besides being somewhat ungrammatical, is a bit too programmer-speak for a general audience. Also, the first time I read that, I wasn't sure whether "Support" was supposed to favor the existing system or the change, and any time there might be any confusion about a vote, it's a very good idea to make it clear, with text like: "A Support vote is to change existing practice and omit quotation marks around entire quotes; a Reject vote is to maintain the existing policy, surrounding entire quotes with quotation marks." (You can perhaps see how that can be confusing, as one might normally expect to support existing practices or demand changes. I had thought we had specified some principle about making the possible votes clear, as Wikipedia does in several places, but I see that Wikiquote:Vote currently doesn't say anything about this, focusing much more on timing and visibility issues. Oh, well; another thing to fix.) I would also have given it a month, given the global scope of the issue and the desire to overturn long-held practice. I wish I had taken the time to say all that before my computer disaster struck. But the vote is in progress, so I'll just let it go. And vote, of course. Thanks. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 03:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you find "MZ" acceptable as a shorthand reference in discussions, where your full username has already been made clear? I've used that a few times, but I don't usually like to do that without a sense that the person doesn't mind. I'm hoping that you find "MZ" as suitable as I do "JQ", and for the same reason — it's very unlikely to be ambiguous! ~ Jeff Q(talk) 03:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Yep, "MZ" is fine (I usually use Jeff to address you, though — hope it's good too, there aren't any other Jeffs around here). I've added it to my user page. Hope your computer is behaving better now! ~ MosheZadka(Talk) 04:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

"Jeff" is fine; I'm quite flattered to be the most visible (notorious?) person of that name here. And it turns out my computer problems were mostly from overly paranoid security software. Better that than security breaches, though. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 03:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The other element is making sure that the edit history of the Wikiquote article (up to the point of transwiki) has been copied to the talk page of the Wikisource article, preserving credit for user contributions (a requirement of GFDL). It looks like Kalki did these two, so that was probably done correctly. Two other considerations that I like to do to make it easier for folks trying to find the results:

Verify wikisource:Transwiki has a record of the incoming transfer, which should include the final destination article title and link. This gets complicated, because the originator of the transwiki (the person who copied the text to the new project) isn't obligated to place the article in its final position, only in the Transwiki: namespace, but many people ignore this and copy right to the new project's article space. That can make the new project's transwiki log confusing. Worse yet, someone at Wikisource decided they didn't need all those records, and rather than archive them, simply deleted them. I don't recall that they've responded to my complaint. Transwiki is complicated enough that many feel justified in ignoring the formal practices, regardless of license issues. (One of my if-I-install-a-test-wiki projects is to implement an automated transwiki process that I've already sketched out.)

An easier optional task (which directly benefits WQ readers) is to ensure that the final title and link are recorded in our Transwiki (the canonical name for the transwiki log, which is redirected to wherever each project wants to place it). That way, WQ readers don't have to rely on the vagaries of other project's practices to find the article they seek. Of course, since we are supposed to log the initial transfer, and that transfer is often shortcutted to go right to the final destination title, this is often already done. But it's nice to check.

Hi. I noticed that you marked the Ernest Dowson page, which I just started, as needing cleanup. If you tell me what the problems are, I'll fix it myself. Thanks, JerryFriedman 16:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

launched Help:Starting a new page especially to help new wikiquote users see the formatting guidelines. Did you notice it? (If not, could you tell me where you did look?) I am asking all these questions because I am certain we do not manage to point people at the documentation we have efficiently enough, and I am hoping to improve it with your help. Thanks! ~ MosheZadka(Talk) 18:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I started the page before looking at anything except other pages (and I didn't even look at the source). After I saw your cleanup tag, I looked around the Main Page, where I found Wikiquote:Templates/People and used that. I didn't notice Help:Starting a new page, but it looks like it might have been fun. What I haven't found is guidelines for formatting, such as whether to use italics for book titles and quotation marks for story or poem titles. Hope this helps. And how do I determine whether the page no longer needs cleanup? Can you check it? —JerryFriedman 17:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I performed a final cleanup and removed the tag - thanks for all your work. If you wish, you can see the changes I made to see the final formatting issues the page had. Thanks ~ MosheZadka(Talk) 20:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

In my obviously subjective opinion, I think you might be getting a bit aggressive about moving discussions from WQ:VP. That Che Guevara statement was only incidentally connected to QotD, and was more a complaint about a perceived bias in Wikiquote. Most VP discussions should be archived on a periodic basis in the VP archive, not moved to specific topics, because people won't remember them from those topics that they may never have participated in. The main reason to move discussions is when they get long and complicated, and are therefore better served by a topical audience at the appropriate article. In summary, I think it would be better to archive older VP discussions that to move them to topical pages just because they're inactive. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 19:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Jeff. I'm afraid as I understand it, your complaint is inaccurate -- I moved discussions off of Talk:Main Page into topical pages. That being the case, it might still be justified, I just want some clarification. Do you think I should have left the discussions on the T:MP page, or that I should have moved them intoWQ:VP? The reason to move things off the main page discussion is that hardly nobody looks at it, and it gets waaaaaay too long. It is a better alternative, I believe, to archiving it on T:MP/Old, as that way it would be even less reachable. Thanks for your feedback, in any case, and thanks in advance for any clarification — and sorry if I seem like I'm nitpicking, but I am really unsure what your suggested strategy is. ~ MosheZadka(Talk) 22:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Geez, I'm getting sloppy! Your comment is hardly a nitpick. I hadn't even contemplated the nature of current Main Page discussions (as opposed to WQ:VP), so my complaint was extremely confusing. I'm still unhappy with the tendency of some folks to move discussions from general to specific talk pages, unless the individual discussions get too long (i.e., have a depth more appropriate for the specific topic's talk page). I believe that short questions should be answered where they arise, with links provided where needed, and that when a talk page gets too long, it should be archived rather than trimmed. (I've had this conversation with Aphaia in the past; I don't think we ever settled it even between ourselves.) It's a standard wiki practice to find old conversations from a talk page in an archived subpage off that talk page, and the links from the original discussion to more appropriate forums for extended discussions provide an easy backtrack through "What links here", even after the original is archived. That makes it reachable both by the original asker (who may only know about their original-page posting, both by memory and Watchlist) and by anyone starting from the logical topic.

But I obviously wasn't paying enough attention to what I was doing. (At least your action had logic!) I'm sorry about the confusion. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 23:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Moshe: Thanks for the note! As a librarian and a Luther scholar, I'm a little touchy about copyright. Most verbatim copies on the internet are from the American Edition of Luther's Works are are there against the will of the publisher. I know, because I asked them for their permission to put the work on the internet through Project Wittenberg. While we don't like works written by the reformer in his anger ("On the Jews and Their Lies" is the most infamous, having been misused by Hitler, other works are also not particularly inviting (such as "Against the Robbing, Raping, Murdering Hordes of Peasants." ), we would put it on for accuracy. We wish he had risen above his times in this matter, but he did not. I have access to the German, but I have not found an english edition in the public domain.

Sorry I ramble. Anyway, if you're near a fairly sizeable city, I can locate a copy you can borrow from a Library, if you really want to read this thing. Email me at smithre@ctsfw.edu and I'll tickle the keyboard for you. Since all manner of things have been put in famous people's mouths, however, I think we should shy away from unattributed quotes. (Can't tell you how many hours I've spent tracking supposed quotes from Luther.)

Thanks for your message! I am sorry to hear there is no English version in the public domain. It would be nice to find a reference to a German edition, and even nicer to find a German edition in an electronic format (such a thing I could put through babelfish for a first-pass translation to find the quotes I'm interested in and translate them with a human). As a wikiquote editor, I can certainly appreciate the effort going to sourcing a quotation -- finding the source for "Kill them all, let God sort out the bodies" was a joint effort by Jeff, two friends of mine and me, and finding the source for a De Vinci misquotation was half an hour of tracking sources.

Please note that in wikiquote slang, "attributed" means "put in someone's mouth" (as opposed to "Sourced", which is a quotation for which we have exact references), whereas "unattributed" means "nobody but wikiquote thinks the person said such a thing" (which is something that shouldn't be). I agree attributed quotes are problematic - I hope that the effort we do into seperating them from sourced quotes and the efforts we do to source the quotes improve things, but I doubt things will improve if we just removed the attributed quotes altogether.

I will send you an e-mail with more information. Thanks! ~ MosheZadka(Talk) 05:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

PS: You put your message to me on my user page, rather than in my talk page. Unfortunately, that is an easy error to make (I made it myself once or twice). A user page is a bad place to put messages for several reasons, so please pay more attention to it in the future. You can go directly to my talk page if you follow the "(Talk)" link in my signature rather than the "MosheZadka" link. If you know all this, and this was just an oversight, I apologize for the rant. ~ MosheZadka(Talk) 05:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for adding to the collection of articles that need to have "verified" replaced with "sourced" and "attributed" sections. You might want to double-check the pages you find, though. You tagged Scott Ritter, but it had never had any section, let alone a "verified" one. It does have the word "verified" in it, but within a quote. (You don't have to worry about that one, though — I've fixed it up.) ~ Jeff Q(talk) 20:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! I've gone over everything in the category, and double-checked. I found only one other mistake (Twelve-tone technique, which I fixed). Of course, I still may have missed something, but now at least I've double (though not triple) checked :) ~ MosheZadka(Talk) 21:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I commend your speed and energy, Moshe, but I think that sometimes you work too fast to notice what you're doing. ;-) I happened to notice that you'd added a second stub tag to Stephen R. Covey, so I deleted it. Just now, I ran across Abraham Maslow, to which you also added a duplicate stub tag (which I also deleted). Could you please check first to see if the stuff you're adding isn't already there? Thanks. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 20:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. Going over my work, I noticed Robert Redford had the same problem, which I fixed. The next batch I plan to do, I will use computerized assistance (a script flagging problematic articles), which will hopefully cut down on mistakes. Thanks ~ MosheZadka(Talk) 22:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience with my quibbles. You're doing so much more at Wikiquote than any other single person that it's a bit embarrassing to point out the occasional problems (especially when I make plenty of my own with less industry!). I appreciate your good humor about it. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 23:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Translation: I have to ask. You're Israeli, right? Why do you work in English Wikiquote. Why don't you write in Hebrew if you know how to read what we write. I'd approach you in Hebrew wikiquote but you do not have a user page there. One more thing -- in the Hebrew site we have problems with the daily quote, we have to change the main page every day for the quote to be updated, and in general the whole system is a (mess) and unclear. You guys have an excellent system and I wanted to see if you can help somehow, or if you have a certain advice and you want me to change, no problem. Thanks in advance and enjoy the work. Again, sorry for the Hebrew but I don't have the strength for English.

1. Yes, I'm Israeli.

2. I hate typing in Hebrew. LTR is a pain, and my typing speed is way slower. Also, I dislike configuring my computers for dual-language input.

3. Most of the quotes I like are in English anyway (check MosheZadka for the kind of stuff I mostly work on).

4. I've no idea how to QOTD system works here. Kalki handles the technical bits. Wikiquote:Quote of the day has a "purge cache" link which users can use to force a reload. Talk:Main Page has some discussions re: cache purging.

This template may have actually had some purpose, however self-serving its creation by 67.160.58.132 was. There is a MediaWiki "Vote for Undeletion" process that we have yet to implement. I've never participated in it, so I don't know what form its components take elsewhere. Of course, we're not even close to addressing this here yet, so it probably wasn't any big deal deleting it. We should keep it in mind for the future, though. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 04:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree a Votes-for-undeletion process is useful. I disagree it could be served by such a template: where would you put it? I mean, the article is deleted, so you can't put it there. This is why the template that Ryan added on WP was deleted there as well. ~ MosheZadka(Talk) 05:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not like I have a better brain, I just read up on Ryan's activities in WP and saw this rationale there. Memory can often serve in lieu of thinking :) ~ MosheZadka(Talk) 07:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow. Didn't mean to stir up such a ruckus. I originally posted the quote; removed it because I wasn't sure it "worked" without lengthy context description (though the humor is pretty obvious). I try (and routinely fail) to avoid posting idiosyncratic material that's only going to appeal to me. If I'm not the only one who enjoys the quote, by all means retain it. Apologies for causing the confusion. --RPickman 19:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello there. I saw your edit removing my request for deletion on the Honoré Mercier article. Your comment is almost a compliment, so thanks. ;) On a more serious note, I guess you could say that you did your job well. I did suspect that it might look as if I was deleting someone else's article. ...so, I'll explain. My stupid mistake actually was that I simply saved the page (a first edit, to boot) without being logged in, which I have worked hard to never do. I simply wanted to recreate it afterwards while logged in. If you want harder proof, you can see the very same text still in my personal sandbox (edited by me before the creation of the Wikiquote article in question) at this address. So, could I get the chance to recreate it under my own identity, not an ip address? --Liberlogos 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, but such a case does not appear in the Speedy deletion candidates, and if you're thinking of VfDing it, I doubt it'd be voted for deletion :) You are free to add a note on the talk page pointing to yourself. Thanks ~ MosheZadka(Talk) 08:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi there, I noticed you put a cleanup tag on the Pierre Boulez page I created this morning (without logging on). Could you tell me what's wrong with it? Also, do the cleanup and stub tags really belong halfway the text? On wikipedia, where I do most of my editing, a stub tag goes at the bottom, and a cleanup tag at the top... Thanks David Sneek 16:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I usually put them after the intro and before the first quote.

I've added a note on Talk:Pierre Boulez pointing to appropriate resources that will help you (roughly, quote marks and no sections are the problems I noticed with a half glance which was enough to justify the cleanup :)

Thanks for the clarification. I tried to improve it, but I didn't add sections because that seemed exaggerated on a stub with only two quotes. Cheers, David Sneek 07:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I've restored the cleanup template. The two problems I specifically mentioned above were not cleaned (the sections are actually important to distinguish between sourced and attributed -- and remember that a stub's article's main function is to help people improve it). ~ MosheZadka(Talk) 07:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the info about how "Attributed" is understood here. With Luther especially I tend to be very careful. I need to be shown where Luther said something before I'll grant he said it. Part of that is receiving a few requests a month for locations of Luther quotes I almost never find. The ones from "On the Jews..." can be quite difficult since it was one very large rambling book that most Lutherans wish had never been written. The quotations on our page are of the nature of some of the language in that work, but I cannot be certain at all they are Luther's actual words. They certainly are not among his most famous, or infamous, quotations. (like "Kill, stab and murder Pope and Turk.")

To illustrate the problem: Luther's most famous words: "Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God, Amen!" Were almost universally recognized as his until in recent years someone pointed out that no one could produce the words in accounts written during Luther's lifetime....

So, I tend to go with the more conventional definition of attributed: popularly credited to an author where there is no evidence the person ever wrote or said the words.

Did you want to find some kind of third catagory to use to distinguish between things virtually everybody is sure he didn't say and those that we just have no verified source to confirm it?

I believe you may have misunderstood me. Lack of clear source is enough to put a quote under attributed. However, all the quotes are added were from an academic site featuring a translation of "On the Jew...". You didn't seem to have accuracy problems with the translation, so I am not understanding your complaint. The translation, and possibly the original, had no chapter information. That is, indeed, unfortunate. I would dearly love to work from an original, if you can find the original German (AIUI not copyrighted) online somewhere (my own attempts, using the German title in google, failed). Thanks ~ MosheZadka(Talk) 04:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

There are two problems with the online version. One is that it is illegally posted. I have quams about crediting it, when it is on the internet against the wishes of the copyright owner. A lesser problem, is to pin down the words quoted in the much larger text. If we could locate even the page number in the copyrighted work, I could consult the German edition. We have both the German in the Weimar Ausgabe of Luther's Works and a copy of a sixteenth century printing. This is not easily done if we do not know where in the hundred or more pages to look. In any case, I would settle for page citations to move a quote up to sourced. For me, it is established as a quote if and only if I can find it easily in a credible source. I would not challange you, however, if you wanted to move something up.

On 17 August 2005, MosheZadka merged the information into Margaret Atwood and created redirects from the article and its talk page, but neglected to check for double redirects, something that should always be done when creating redirects (or doing moves). Also, the resulting talk page history statement made it look like what was transwikied was "Margaret Atwood", which was misleading.

When I noticed oddities about the resulting article, I went to Transwiki to figure out what had happened. But not a single change was logged since it arrived in Wikiquote. This is why we have the transwiki log — to untangle these hard-to-track movements and frequent transwiki editing errors and omissions. I've logged the major transactions and added a heading and text to the talk page to clarify where the original material came from.

I know this transwiki stuff is a pain, but until the MediaWiki projects come up with some automated system to get things moved between projects properly, it's important to follow the correct procedures. Whenever processing a transwiki, I highly recommend setting aside 10-15 minutes, reviewing the steps described in Help:Transwiki, logging the changes made, and checking "What links here" for any moved or redirected articles. When you're done, you should not only verify that the transwiki log shows the complete move (preferably by clicking on the links in the log, which will expose broken redirects or misspelled titles), but also read the resulting article and talk pages to ensure they make sense for people who come across them for the first time. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 11:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

hi moshe, you set up a merging link in the hdtv article here. if this will be done, how can we link form the wikipedia article to this sub-theme inside the wikiqoute television article? would that be possible in a way? thanx for a reply. greets, --Andreas -horn- Hornig 11:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, since there is one quote, I'm unsure what value you would be serving by linking...but in any case, it's possible to merge in HDTV to a seperate section, and then from WP you can link to [[q:Television#High-definition Television|High-definition television]]. ~ MosheZadka(Talk) 18:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

hi again, i know, that there is just one quote in it, but somewhere it has to start. if i would have more quotes, i would post it. but unless these quotes i have are not from important people ore at least movies i will not post them.

i know these kinds of anchor links, but i did not know, that these are usus here, because when the will article change or will move the anchor links do not work. thanx a lot for your response, --Andreas -horn- Hornig 21:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"Somewhere to start?" The article had just one quote for four months now. The only edits except for administrative work I did was one anon fixing the wp link. This gives very little hope that the article will ever see more quotes. Merging it into Television would give it more visibility. ~ MosheZadka(Talk) 00:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey! Thank you for your comments on my editing of Paul Graham's page. It was my first Wikiquote edit and I appreciate you taking the time to point this newbie to the mores to be observed. I gave it a shot and left some comments at the talk page. Thanks. Eliazar 21:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Moshe, I've corrected your VFD notice on Talk:Giosuè Carducci to make clear that the article under vote was Hymn to Satan. I noticed this problem before whenever we closed kept-but-moved articles, and when I was doing the bulk of VfD closures, I just copied and edited the Template:vfd-kept text to say the right thing. But I was too lazy to create another template for this case, and now that you're doing most of the closures, I'm afraid I've been caught out in my laziness.

I was going to create a Template:vfd-moved just now, but I realized that I can't avoid a problem I neatly skirted with vfd-kept. In the latter, the only parameter is the name of the VfD entry, not the article name. This is a problem whenever we have VfD entries that aren't exactly the same as the article name, like for multiple articles and extremely long titles. As long as the page is merely kept, the only parameter necessary is the VFDA heading. When moving, however, the message I created for T:GC requires 3 parameters: the original article, the final article (which is the current PAGENAME without the "Talk:"), and the VFDA entry. I think it'll take a little experimenting to see how best to do this. Sorry for the inconvenience. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 04:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)